(a) merge contents and redirect of this namespace with Backdoor spending authority; or

(b) move this namespace to Backdoor spending authority and merge contents of the two. OscarO 13:31, 10 January 2013 (EST)

I disagree. For example the MWR of each branch of the Armed Services have Spending Authority, but do not work from appropriated funds. They are supported by user fees. There is nothing "backdoor" about this. Various ancillary services are perfectly legal, but are expected to be self-supporting. Another example is the PX on a military base. Such operations are expected to be self-supporting and do not represent the spending of taxpayer money. Wschact 17:49, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Many of those are subcontracting or outsourced. User fees in the National Parks don't come anywhere near supporting wages and maintenance costs. In some cases, fees and royalties (drilling contracts on public lands, for example) can return revenue above costs, to help subsidize costs within the same Department (Interior Dept for example), or returned to the general revenue fund. But I'm using Louise Slaughter (a very credible source)'s definition, that "Spending authority" is the technical term for jargon term Backdoor spending, and not the other way around. Either way, Spending authority & Backdoor authority escape the appropriations process. One just sounds more legitimate to the public and press than the common jargon term members of congress use. OscarO 19:39, 10 January 2013 (EST)

Both articles cite the same section of the same act

Spending authority is defined in section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (uncited)

I propose this namespace be redirected to Backdoor spending authority, the more common jargon term used the Democratic Rules Committee Chairwoman who had oversight of the unprecedented debt brought to the House floor and approved between 2007-2011. OscarO 20:16, 10 January 2013 (EST)